The first Rural Health Transformation awards are landing in facilities now. Contrary to the common read, personnel costs are allowable - clinician salaries can be funded under an approved workforce initiative. The binding constraint is structural: funds must be obligated inside a single budget period, salary and fringe must be spent in the period incurred, and the whole appropriation ends after FY2030. Meanwhile the clinician you recruit may owe five years of rural service.
The money is arriving. States received their first-year Rural Health Transformation awards from CMS in late December, subawards and contracts are being executed through this summer, and the question moving through rural units right now is the practical one: can we use any of this to fix the schedule?
The answer is more interesting than the one circulating. You can hire with this money. The widespread read - that Rural Health Transformation buys scanners and telehealth carts but not people - is wrong on the face of the program documents. Workforce is one of the program's stated aims. Clinician salaries and wage support are explicitly allowable when funded as part of an approved initiative, subject to one condition CMS spells out directly: funds may not go to clinician salaries at a facility that subjects clinicians to non-compete contractual limitations. Professional development, training, certification, supervision of community health workers and other extenders are all in scope.
So allowability is not the constraint. The calendar is, and it is far less forgiving.
Rural Health Transformation is a $50 billion program authorized under Section 71401 of Public Law 119-21, disbursing roughly $10 billion per fiscal year across FY2026 through FY2030. First-year state awards averaged about $200 million, ranging from roughly $147 million to $281 million. All fifty states applied and all fifty received an award. Half the money was distributed equally across approved states; the other half was allocated on rural health need and proposed impact.
For subsequent years, CMS has told states they may budget on prior award amounts or on an average award of $200 million per year - with the explicit caveat that state budgets "will go up or down depending on the state's ability to meet the RHTP checkpoints set by CMS."
Read that the way a unit manager should. Next year's award is not a renewal. It is a score.
First: obligation is bounded by the budget period. A state's authority to obligate funds - to commit them to a contract or subaward - exists only during the active budget period for which those funds are available. When the period closes, remaining unobligated funds cannot be committed and therefore cannot be spent. They are classified as unexpended and, under the authorizing statute, redistributed by CMS to other states. CMS has stated plainly that there are no extensions.
Second, and this is the one that matters most for staffing: personnel costs do not roll. To avoid duplication of costs across budget periods, CMS specifies that personnel-related costs such as salary and fringe must be expended within the budget period in which the expense is incurred. Most obligated categories can be spent through the end of the fiscal year following the year of award. Salary and fringe are called out as an exception.
That is the staffing problem in one line. You cannot obligate three years of a nurse's salary out of this year's award and let it draw down. Each year's payroll comes out of each year's money - which means it depends on the state clearing that year's checkpoints and CMS renewing at a level that still covers the position.
Third: the initiative is the initiative. CMS awarded funding "specifically and exclusively for the activities outlined in each State's approved application," and states may not add, delete, or change approved initiatives. Changes will be considered only in later program years, only on robust quantitative evidence that an initiative lacks efficacy, and only case by case at CMS's sole discretion. If your state's application did not describe an initiative your unit's problem fits inside, there is no local workaround. The flexibility you are hoping for was spent at the application stage, in a state capital.
Now put the recruitment side against the funding side.
Where a state uses program funds for stipends, housing assistance, or other incentives paid directly to a clinician, that individual is obligated to a five-year rural service requirement - CMS is explicit that this attaches even to participants in one-year non-accredited internship programs that lead to no credential, as long as the individual received the incentive. Salaries or payments to clinicians tied to new or expanded workforce development initiatives are allowable provided the employee commits to five years of service.
So the clinician commits to five years. The appropriation runs through FY2030. And the funding that pays them is re-earned annually against a checkpoint score.
Consider a composite: a twenty-five-bed critical access hospital whose obstetrics service closed three years ago, now standing up a family medicine obstetrics track under its state's approved workforce initiative. The state funds a stipend and housing for two physicians. Both sign a five-year commitment. The unit rebuilds call coverage, retrains the nurses who stayed, and reopens deliveries in year two.
Nothing about that is improper, and all of it is real improvement. But the hospital has now restored a service line whose staffing depends on an appropriation with a terminal date, in a program where routine operating costs, financial losses, and replacement of existing funding are all unallowable. When the grant stops, that obstetrics service has to stand on its own reimbursement - in a market where more than 40% of rural hospitals are already operating at a loss and 417 are considered vulnerable to closure, and where more than 300 hospitals have already eliminated OB and more than 450 have eliminated chemotherapy.
Closing a service twice is worse than never reopening it. The community learns something the second time that it does not unlearn.
None of this argues against taking the money. It argues for asking a better question than "is this an allowable use."
Ask instead: what does this position cost in year six? If the service line generates enough to carry it, the grant is doing exactly what it was designed to do - bridging you to a sustainable model. If year six looks like today plus a salary you cannot cover, you are not being funded. You are being given a runway with no lights at the far end, and a clinician with a five-year obligation standing on it.
Which of your service lines could survive the grant ending - and have you told your CFO which ones can't?
Discover how Addie helps health systems, post-acute providers, and payers improve throughput, reduce avoidable days, and deliver better transitions of care.
Get Started
